Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Mass shootings on the radar again.


swordfish

Recommended Posts

Honestly I don't see what all the hub bub over this Wal Mart thing is.

1. Wal Mart hasn't sold hand guns in the lower 48 that I am aware of. 

2. Local store typically has a lousy selection of guns, I would never consider buying a gun there. 

3. Locally I may have bought some bulk shot gun shells from them in the past, but their selection of ammo is less than stellar, and the pricing is not that attractive.

4. They have asked people not to open carry, so what? You can still carry. Most folks don't open carry anyway.

5. Patronize your local gun shop, patronize your local businesses period. They're part of your community. Any big box is one bad quarter away from closing up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Honestly I don't see what all the hub bub over this Wal Mart thing is.

1. Wal Mart hasn't sold hand guns in the lower 48 that I am aware of. 

2. Local store typically has a lousy selection of guns, I would never consider buying a gun there. 

3. Locally I may have bought some bulk shot gun shells from them in the past, but their selection of ammo is less than stellar, and the pricing is not that attractive.

4. They have asked people not to open carry, so what? You can still carry. Most folks don't open carry anyway.

5. Patronize your local gun shop, patronize your local businesses period. They're part of your community. Any big box is one bad quarter away from closing up.

A lot of individuals in Frankfort purchase their ammo from Rural King, right across S.R. 28 from Wal-Mart.

https://www.wbko.com/content/news/Rural-King-issues-statement-reaffirming-legal-firearm-sales-559380331.html

Quote

One day after Walmart announced the decision to limit firearm and ammunition sales, Rural King issued a statement reaffirming a commitment to lawfully selling them.

The statement, released on Facebook, said:

"Many rural Americans are defenders and supporters of our rights and the 2nd Amendment. We at Rural King are proud to stand with these Americans to protect and defend our freedoms.

"While some retailers are bowing to pressures involving the selling of firearms, Rural King will continue to sell firearms lawfully in all our stores and online at RKGuns.com.

"Hunting, camping, fishing, and other outdoor activities are some of our most treasured traditions and are woven into the fabric of rural America, At Rural King we are dedicated to living, loving, and embracing the rural lifestyle and carrying the products our customers expect.

"We would like to thank you for shopping at Rural King and God Bless America!"

The Illinois based retailer, founded in 1960, specializes in farm and home goods.

....

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Not that I'm aware of. Those commodities are readily available with no shipping required.

So you do takes trips to the store then.  Unless you or individuals living with you don't consume milk or eggs.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrojanDad said:

Hey Bernie...stop being cranky....that doesn't help gaining votes......

Weren't you the same guy that tracked down the street I live on to give me a crime report?  While that was none of your business, sure didn't stop you.

Keep firing away Muda!!

 

Yep, tells me all I need to know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Hey Bernie...stop being cranky....that doesn't help gaining votes......

Weren't you the same guy that tracked down the street I live on to give me a crime report?  While that was none of your business, sure didn't stop you.

 

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Well...I wasn't going to go to the trouble of finding your quote, but now you've added the motivation.

I'm not aware of a method of "tracking down" what street someone lives on based on a screen name from an anonymous internet message board. If that's in the "quote" you're referencing, please share that as well LOL.

41 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Calling someone a liar without doing it face to face, makes you a coward piece of dung in my book.

What was I in your book before? hahahaha

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, swordfish said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/south-bend-cops-warn-of-wild-west-after-spate-of-shootings-amid-rift-with-buttigieg

The story linked is almost a month old, but over 100 shots were fired in South Bend over the weekend. A bunch were simply fired into some homes.....It really is bad in South Bend

 

 

That's 13 minutes I'll never get back. Doesn't answer anything, canned responses, the dude is slick, I'll give him that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Mulls Orwellian Proposal to Stop Mass Shootings by Monitoring 'Mentally Ill People' for Signs of Imminent Violence: https://reason.com/2019/09/09/trump-mulls-orwellian-proposal-to-stop-mass-shootings-by-monitoring-mentally-ill-people-for-signs-of-imminent-violence/

Quote

The Trump administration is reportedly considering a pitch from former NBC Chairman Robert Wright, a presidential pal, for a research program aimed at preventing mass shootings by electronically monitoring people who have received psychiatric diagnoses. That Orwellian plan may or may not be defeated by its utter impracticability.

Wright has dubbed his idea SAFEHOME—an acronym for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes. The Washington Post reports that his three-page proposal imagines using "technology like phones and smart watches" to "detect when mentally ill people are about to turn violent." The idea, the paper says, is to look for "small changes that might foretell violence."

The Post notes that "only a quarter or less" of mass shooters "have diagnosed mental illness." But that is only the beginning of the difficulties with this half-baked scheme.

The larger problem is that the percentage of "mentally ill people" (a group that, by some estimates, includes more than a quarter of the U.S. population in any given year) who will use a gun to commit mass murder is approximately zero. Likewise for the general population, since mass shootings are very rare events, accounting for less than 1 percent of gun homicides.

2012 study that the Defense Department commissioned after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas explains the significance of that fact in an appendix titled "Prediction: Why It Won't Work." The appendix observes that "low-base-rate events with high consequence pose a management challenge." In the case of "targeted violence," for example, "there may be pre-existing behavior markers that are specifiable." But "while such markers may be sensitive, they are of low specificity and thus carry the baggage of an unavoidable false alarm rate, which limits feasibility of prediction-intervention strategies." In other words, even if certain "red flags" are common among mass shooters, almost none of the people who display those signs are bent on murderous violence.

The Defense Department report illustrates the problem with a hypothetical example. "Suppose we actually had a behavioral or biological screening test to identify those who are capable of targeted violent behavior with moderately high accuracy," the report says. If "a population of 10,000 military personnel…includes ten individuals with extreme violent tendencies, capable of executing an event such as that which occurred at Ft. Hood," a test that correctly identified eight of those 10 dangerous people would wrongly implicate "1,598 personnel who do not have these violent tendencies."

That scenario assumes a predictive test that does not actually exist. "We cannot overemphasize that there is no scientific basis for a screening instrument to test for future targeted violent behavior that is anywhere close to being as accurate as the hypothetical example above," the report says.

The research program imagined by Wright is aimed at developing a predictive test. But even in the unlikely event that it succeeded, the enormous false-positive problem would remain.

...

Once the research has been completed, of course, the resulting information would be pretty useless if it could be deployed only against volunteers. So how would that work? Would people with certain psychiatric diagnoses be legally required to carry electronic monitors aimed at detecting "small changes that might foretell violence"? How could such a requirement be reconciled with due process or the Fourth Amendment?

...

The Post also interviewed Johns Hopkins neurologist Geoffrey Ling, who advised Wright on his proposal. "To those who say this is a half-baked idea, I would say, 'What's your idea? What are you doing about this?'" Ling said. "The [worst] you can do is fail, and failing is where we are already." Given the potential for mass stigma, invasions of privacy, and violations of due process, I'd say we can do a lot worse than failing.

We have failed as a nation if the cockamamie scheme every becomes law.

As one of the comments to this story states:  "What we really need is a politician monitoring system to predict when they are about to turn dangerous to liberty."

 

Edited by Muda69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tweet from the New York Times on 9/11:

“18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.”

This was quickly deleted and re-worded, (“18 years after nearly 3,000 people were lost, families of those killed in the terror attacks will gather at the 9/11 memorial. There will be a moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., then the names of the dead — one by one — will be recited.”) but SF thinks this same mindset applies to the anti-gun crowd who continually blame guns for mass shootings instead of the person actually pulling the trigger..... 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beto O'Rourke: 'Hell Yes, We're Going To Take Your AR-15': https://reason.com/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-hell-yes-were-going-to-take-your-ar-15/

Quote

The days when Democratic candidates would promise to restrict gun ownership, but then quickly assure voters they didn't mean your guns seem to be in the past.

During the second hour of Thursday's Democratic primary debate, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas cut to the chase.

"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," he said.

To be fair, it's not the first time O'Rourke has displayed remarkable frankness on the topic. Debate moderator David Muir had asked O'Rourke about comments he made last month, shortly after the mass shooting at a Walmart in his hometown of El Paso, Texas, in which he promised that anyone who owned an AK-47 or AR-15 would "have to sell them to the government."

In passionate answer on gun violence, Beto O'Rourke says, "When we see that being used against children…Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."https://t.co/INdRXlIwFs #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/XqcbTWvR0m

 

— ABC News (@ABC) September 13, 2019

 

But O'Rourke also promised that he would make the process an inclusive one, saying that he would "bring everyone in America into the conversation: Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, and non-gun-owners alike."

Other candidates on the stage Thursday night were less interested in what their opponents—or the Constitution—might have to say.

Moments before O'Rourke's comments, former Vice President Joe Biden had challenged Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) about the unconstitutionality of her promise to issue an executive order that would limit access to guns during her first 100 days in office. In response, the former prosecutor literally laughed.

Biden said a president has "no constitutional authority" to ban guns via executive order—a rare moment in which one of the candidates on stage admitted there are limitations to presidential power. "Some things you can [do with executive orders]; many things you can't," said Biden.

"I would just say, 'Hey, Joe, instead of saying "No we can't," let's say "Yes, we can,"'" retorted Harris, borrowing President Barack Obama's famous campaign line. Then she cackled hysterically while Biden responded "let's be constitutional."

....

O'Rourke's idea of forcing Americans to sell their guns to the government has a similar gaping hole in it. What about the people who don't want to sell? As Jon Stokes, one of the founders of Ars Technica and one of the people behind opensourcedefense.org, a post-culture war gun rights collective, recently wrote at Reason, gun buyback programs are mostly futile:

My point is that regardless of what you think of the gun owners who won't comply or the cops who'll inevitably let them off without even a verbal warning, there is no gun registration, gun ban, or gun confiscation that a U.S. Congress can pass and a U.S. president can sign that will be even close to fully complied with or enforced. Not one.

Promising to smash the Second Amendment and laughing at the right of Americans to protect their homes and loved ones, while being unable to fully think through the implications of gun confiscation plans? That's an interesting strategy for turning red states blue.

Good luck with that plan Mr. O'Rourke.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Beto O'Rourke: 'Hell Yes, We're Going To Take Your AR-15': https://reason.com/2019/09/12/beto-orourke-hell-yes-were-going-to-take-your-ar-15/

Good luck with that plan Mr. O'Rourke.

 

Francis is so far behind, he's grasping at straws to keep his hopes alive and remain relevant. Unfortunately he's hitched his wagon to the wrong pony. He seems to think if he yells louder, says naughty words, he'll get some traction. I think he's greatly overestimated the population's zeal for further limiting their rights. 

The bottom line, as the article points out, they have no idea where these guns are, who owns them, and will have more difficulty than they know finding police officers who will break their oath to go confiscate these newly illegal guns. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Francis is so far behind, he's grasping at straws to keep his hopes alive and remain relevant. Unfortunately he's hitched his wagon to the wrong pony. He seems to think if he yells louder, says naughty words, he'll get some traction. I think he's greatly overestimated the population's zeal for further limiting their rights. 

The bottom line, as the article points out, they have no idea where these guns are, who owns them, and will have more difficulty than they know finding police officers who will break their oath to go confiscate these newly illegal guns. 

Typical politician answering his fans......Even Joe Biden knows this......

BUT - if he only wants to eliminate the AR 15 and the AK 47, he is forgetting like maybe a MAC 10....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...